The Truth: No Vaccines Are Safe For Children This week the World Council for Health issued a statement explaining why parents should no longer allow their babies and children to be vaccinated – please help by spreading the word.

substack.com ^ | September 10, 2023 | Dr Tess Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD​

[napscoordinator]

Why do you care? Leave the person alone Karen.

[gitmo]

Who is this World Council for Health?

[PeterPrinciple]

https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/

[AnAmericanMother]

Um . . . smallpox inoculation predates even the Broad Street Pump.

There's a failure to distinguish between long-standing, well-established vaccines with a track record, and novel shots without proper testing being pushed on the population.

Distinctions are necessary here. I remember when the polio vaccine came in, and everyone breathed a huge sigh of relief. Kid in my grade school carpool must have been one of the last to get it. Heavy iron braces, lungs compromised to an extent. Died young.

We don't want that back.

[Jane Long]

Spot. On.

Agree, 100%.

If they were an average FReeper, perhaps disagreeing, or, not fully believing, they would NOT go to the great lengths these (few remaining, thankfully) $hills go to....to jump on to warning threads....disparage, malign, and, bash any reporting on the adverse effects, dangers, etc, of these $hots, at the continued rate they do.

They certainly have, and, continue to give themselves away.

Pfizerbucks must really be putting the pressure on them :-)

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Um . . . smallpox inoculation predates even the Broad Street Pump.

Exactly. The unsanitary conditions during the 1700s gave the disease a vector to spread.

In that case, it was necessary since it was the only alternative.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Um . . . smallpox inoculation predates even the Broad Street Pump.

Also worth noting...

"smallpox, both the naturally contracted disease and the inoculated version, were common in the crowded cities of Europe. Most Europeans did not make it through childhood without contracting the disease, and those who survived became immune.

"Doctors inoculated those who did not contract the disease naturally. Not only was most of Europe immune to smallpox, but most of the British military was as well. During this era, most American colonists lived in the countryside far from their neighbors, which reduced smallpox transmission. Because few American colonists had contracted the disease before, the colonies experienced sporadic and deadly outbreaks of smallpox. "

The smallpox inoculation involved a doctor removed pus from an active pustule of an infected person, and then inserted that pus into the skin of a non-infected person via a small incision.

No simian cancer cells, no chemicals, no mystery juice, no heavy metals. Just a skin level infection from the real virus.

[heartwood]

Typhoid and polio spread by fecal contamination. Sanitation helps enormously. We don’t even vaccinate for typhoid in the US.

Measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough, diphtheria spread airborne or by droplet. Hygiene doesn’t help you there. Herd immunity does.

I did refuse the hepatitis vaccines for my babies. Hepatitis A fecal-oral spread, Hepatitis B blood or sexually transmitted. They weren’t at risk, weren’t in daycare, weren’t abused, we have safe water. Probably could have refused polio as well.

[metmom]

IBT$$

[metmom]

Measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough, diphtheria spread airborne or by droplet. Hygiene doesn’t help you there. Herd immunity does.

Medical care for bacterial and viral infections has improved greatly since we were kids and had those diseases. Antivirals, antibiotics; and steroids all would help prevent many of the complications from those childhood diseases.

The big danger here with those not going around any more, is that should society break down or something happen to the vaccine supply, those who have depended on the vaccines are going to be in a world of hurt.

There's also the factor that in every outbreak of those diseases, a number of the kids coming down with whatever it is ALWAYS includes those who have been *vaccinated*, showing that the vaccinations do not necessarily work.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

—> Sanitation helps enormously. We don’t even vaccinate for typhoid in the US.
Measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough, diphtheria spread airborne or by droplet. Hygiene doesn’t help you there.

Poor hygiene *always* leads to weakened immune system in the population.

It is the terrain, not simply the germ.

Sanitation reduced the spread of all those diseases *before* a specific vaccine was available.

I’ve posted the historic charts here a number of times.

[NobleFree]

Nailed it:

“This is what the Left has done for so long. They create this phony foundations / organizations with these official sounding names then send out releases to be cited as authoritative. All bogus. Look at the citations - it’s a collection of the same conspiracy pushers - they are citing each other as evidence.”

[heartwood]

The counter argument is that if society breaks down, at least the people vaccinated against measles are much less likely to get measles than the unvaccinated. They might be more vulnerable to something else - maybe, maybe not - and no one will have modern water treatment or supportive care in hospitals.

My poor 19th century Massachusetts ancestors died a lot younger than their forebears a century earlier, from urbanization and crowding, TB and dysentery.

My poor 19th century North Carolina ancestors had very very few premature deaths, barring the Civil War. They weren’t crowded, even if they were hungry sometimes.

80% of the population are urbanites now.

[heartwood]

Also, do you have a link to those charts? A genuine and respectful curiosity here.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

I’ll dig them out again after the game

[aMorePerfectUnion]

I’ll dig them out again after the game

[joshua c]

you are correct sir!

regulatory capture

[aMorePerfectUnion]

OK, circling back. Since there are a number of charts, I will just post them without commenting on each one.

Most are self evident anyway.

I will included a quote at the end about what percent of death was avoided by vaccination vs. other issues to conclude

............................................. snip.....................................................

"The article is aptly entitled “The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century.” This is really the seminal paper, along with Kass’s testimony which would influence the 2000 CDC paper which built on these findings.

The quote below gives their attestation that even in a best case scenario, the most that the medical community could hope to claim in terms of the “total contribution of medical measures to the decline in mortality in the United States since 1900” was between 1 and 3.5%.

“Even if it were assumed that this change was entirely due to the vaccines, then only about one percent of the decline following interventions for the diseases considered here could be attributed to medical measures. Rather more conservatively, if we attribute some of the subsequent fall in the death rates for pneumonia, influenza, whooping cough, and diphtheria to medical measures, then perhaps 3.5 percent of the fall in the overall death rate can be explained through medical intervention in the major infectious diseases considered here. Indeed, given that it is precisely for these diseases that medicine claims most success in lowering mortality, 3.5 percent probably represents a reasonable upper-limit estimate of the total contribution of medical measures to the decline in mortality in the United States since 1900.”

Said another way, a minimum of 96.5% of the 74% decline in mortality had nothing to do with vaccines. The importance of this cannot be understated. If someone was to claim that vaccination programs had almost nothing to do with the 20th century victories over infectious diseases in the US, they would be supported not by whims and theories, but by the data and expert testimony.

The report goes on to note what can now be seen as a prophetic prediction for the situation we now find ourselves in. Here they are warning that there are those who might seek to inflate their own contribution to the success in the precipitous drop in mortality rate to claim the credit, and then use this as a means of requiring participation by everyone:

“It is not uncommon today for biotechnological knowledge and specific medical interventions to be invoked as the major reason for most of the modern (twentieth century) decline in mortality. Responsibility for this decline is often claimed by, or ascribed to, the present-day major beneficiaries of this prevailing explanation.”

Then in 2000, the CDC reconfirmed these findings in a pediatric journal entitled “Annual Summary of Vital Statistics: Trends in the Health of Americans During the 20th Century”. In this report epidemiologists stated in agreement with the 1977 Boston University journal entry:

“Thus vaccination does not account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century…nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccine were available.”

The study made clear that the credit goes to “water treatment, food safety, organized solid waste disposal, and public education about hygienic practices.The quote below gives their attestation that even in a best case scenario, the most that the medical community could hope to claim in terms of the “total contribution of medical measures to the decline in mortality in the United States since 1900” was between 1 and 3.5%.

“Even if it were assumed that this change was entirely due to the vaccines, then only about one percent of the decline following interventions for the diseases considered here could be attributed to medical measures. Rather more conservatively, if we attribute some of the subsequent fall in the death rates for pneumonia, influenza, whooping cough, and diphtheria to medical measures, then perhaps 3.5 percent of the fall in the overall death rate can be explained through medical intervention in the major infectious diseases considered here. Indeed, given that it is precisely for these diseases that medicine claims most success in lowering mortality, 3.5 percent probably represents a reasonable upper-limit estimate of the total contribution of medical measures to the decline in mortality in the United States since 1900.”

Said another way, a minimum of 96.5% of the 74% decline in mortality had nothing to do with vaccines.

The importance of this cannot be understated. If someone was to claim that vaccination programs had almost nothing to do with the 20th century victories over infectious diseases in the US, they would be supported not by whims and theories, but by the data and expert testimony.

....................................

Quote from: https://www.newcitytimes.com/science/are-vaccines-what-saved-us-from-epidemics-of-infectious-disease/

[aMorePerfectUnion]

I will also add the other side of the vaxx coin here.

What is the consequence of assaulting the immune systems of children with endless vaccines - not through the outer skin and mucous membranes, as they would normally be encourtered, but escorting them into the inner body - often multiple disease vaccines at one time?

If this endless number of vaccines is a net good, why does the data not support this when comparing us (with our no vaxx liability laws and crony capitalism system) to other developed countries??

[aMorePerfectUnion]